Karnataka High Court
Ashoka B H vs State By Chickpaet Police on 3 February, 2010
IN 'THE E~IIGI~~l COURT OI' KARNA'I'A.KA AT BAN GALORE DATED 'l'HiS TIMIE 03""-3 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20,10.» BEFO RE THE HON'BL}':3 MR. JUSTECE3 K.N.KEsx~1AvAi${ARA$fA§§;x cRL.A.No.56V-5201-0. A BETWEEN: M S 1 ASHOKA 13 H S /0 H HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45.YEARS------ _ "
BACHENAHATTY H ' 1.
MAGADI 'rA_L,,UK " ' .ivBAv.s--c§ga;Loi5<i:v';)13fi*RicT " V
2 'R_AN4GAS\R;'A;;'.!EYS»V' __ s'/Q 'CI~ll£«2KA«.RA_N€_x GOWDA AG 1313 A.BO'U'I"37'YEARS ~ --. R/A N0. 10; BACHENAHA'I'TI MA.GAD1"-'rA,LUK EBANGALORE RURAL DIS'I'RiC'i' ... APPEILLANTS sat: .3§£§.1;\iAIaAYANA ADV. FOR M /SA N N ASSOCEATES) AND'; A STATEC BY CHiCKPAI1'.'l' POI,iCE REP BY PUBLIC I7'ROSIEZCU"E"OR SESSIONS COURT, BANGALORE RECSPONE)I*ZN'I' 5'?
'X [By Sri : B.BA.},AKR.lSHNA§ HCGP) THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S449 CR.P.C BY 'I.."r'I.I:'-44.AD,V., FOR THI: APPELLAN'l'S PRAYING THAT 'FH1S._ j 1I~H_I.0I».I1i~I3I;I.a:
COURT MAY B131 PLEASEI) TO SET ASlDE_;"1.'HE:"--E:I'xiT£'i}"2Eg PROCEEDINGS ISSUED ACAII_\IS'.Ij THI; APPELLANTS/SURETIES IN C.MIS..NQ.3442/OSEFROM.THE"» "
XXXJII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SEZSSION AND ..1DI;_-SEJVAND SPECIAL JDUGE [NDPS) BANGALOI_2'E.*C'ISiC»F?RODUC,E.D'€F;S PER ANNEXURE--A AND: ON 7__Tl*'!_E3 S'E_I?.E§£"JC3'E'I*} DEPOSFFING AMOUNT 'W'H,{CH *..iS VP§€Oi)U«CEI}: AT!' ANNEXUREVC AND RELEASiNGI.THE1Vi._'['OC_.SU'RETY SHIP FROM ACCUSED NO.2. ANITTQ .QRANT._C0STi': OF THIS PETITEON.
THIS APPEAL Cic)'%II/I'II\'IS7OI\I§C§,H.A'I)MISSIoN THIS DAY THE COURT DE~£;}'.fEIRED_".T}{E} FOLLOWING: in"'*t<_E_'1iS_ under Section 449 of Cr.P.C., pf§€itiOE1€fI'S._VV}1Q, are Sureiiies 1 and 2 for accused » 'Sp*ec_:iaE C.C.N0.4I/O6 on the file of 33*" Add}. Sessions Judge, Bangaiore. have Sought. for" Seittairig aide the entire proceedings initiated against 2 them in C.MiSe.No.3442/2008. H The appeliantis Stood Sureiies for accused No.2 ' before the Court beiow. Accused No.2 is Charge Sheeted for the offences punislraable under Sections 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. During the t1'iai~«'.oi'.tr}?i.:ei'cas'e.M' accused No.2 absconded and f2?iilec1"'t.oy_ court below. Inspite of isst2_an<:_.e Oflv"jplflCif14ba.'il€1.b.l'€-. warrant. his presence co1.1'i'ecl:VV:"'1not V those circumsta11ces':;..ghe iorfleiiveldllythe surety bonds executecl by them to pay the bor;'1d"ar'r1ou:1t1t the recovery of the same. "After coming to know of the i'ssu.e' of .th.e]"appella1it,s appeared before the court be1.gmr,Valnd"" for time to pay the penalty. sLtbseq_i;_erat.ly the appellants failed to pay the ' and later they filed application under 'Slectiov1i Cr.P.C. seeking remission of portion of the {hie amount.
Vf3. By order dated 5.41.2008. though the learned trial judge posteci the case for ob3'e.ctions of the prosecution on the application filed by the appellants for remission, ,~.
simultaneously ordered issue of FLW. The said order dated 5.4.2008 directing issue of FLW without disposing of the application under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C..,'§ was challenged by the appellants before this courtj"by"y"fi:ling Crl.R.P.705/O8. T he said petition came by this court on 1.7.2008 hQld'ii'--1g no it justification to interfere with the learned Sessions Judge. lAft:ert.yreceip.t. of the order passed in Crl=.R.P.DJo'§7t)5/VHS, learned'lSessions Judge 'F'LW_ At that stage, the appellants have this appeal.
4. is «.T_l"ie only content.ion urged by the learned Advocate
- Afvtlr' the procedure adopted by the Judge in directing FLW without dis.pos_i'ng.§lA.lthe application filed by the appellants under ..Sectio'n;446[3) for remission of the portion of the fine '~_a'rn--ount. is bad in law and the learned Sessions Judge %tV,/' ought not to l"J.dV€ issued FLW without disposing of the application filed under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C.
5. Having regard to the fact that. the by these appellants to the _order directing issue of FLW against filing an application undei*..:Secti0n' 41-<i'6{3).jl*taiiing':been"V dismissed, the appeliantsp.c--anriot--».._be permitted to re- agitate the same isslueg'ove1f.;7agairi:_in'this appeal. No dou'o't, the 'certified copy of the order sheet of"tl_}.e indicate that the appellants had fil.e.d 'appiicati'o.nVt_i_nder Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking » 1ret_nissiori«,o'f. portion of fine amount. Reading of Section E doll-'V.i_1-ot,c:=.indicate that uniess the application filed un'cier',Secti0n 446(3) is disposed of, the court has no power to proceed to recover the fine amount. What is 'contemplated under Section 446(3) is, only remission of portion of the fine arnotint. 'l'h.erefore. even after the recovery of the entire fine amount, if the appiication /E
7. in this View of the rnat.ter._ I find n__<';""gre3_~u._::1a:_.vpa_ admit, this appeal. Accordilagly. the reserving liberty to the appelléznt :_1:oz Sessions Judge to disp0se 0'f..}:he apgfilirgat;(§f1Agi';.1..s;V(;1V t;ancie:'. ' Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.